Investigating climate change and emerging theoretical perspectives: a systematic theoretical review and thematic analysis

Abstract

This study aims to review existing studies on climate change theories, as well as other theories from other disciplines, including economics, political science, sociology, management, cultural studies, and psychology that have been used to explain climate change. Furthermore, it seeks to identify emerging theoretical perspectives in climate change research. This study analyzed and reviewed 73 articles and reports on climate change theories and emerging theoretical perspectives using systematic theoretical review and thematic analysis methodologies. Data sources included Science Direct, Taylor & Francis, Emerald, Google Scholar, and Google general. The findings indicate the multidimensional nature of climate change theories, encompassing four primary climate change theories, interdisciplinary theories, and emerging theoretical perspectives. This variation suggests that no single theory can fully explain the complexity of climate change, necessitating an integrated approach. The review revealed that anthropogenic climate change theory dominates the literature, representing 37.5% (12 papers) of the reviewed literature, reinforcing the strong scientific consensus among academics, environmentalists, and policymakers that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are the primary drivers of climate change. The paper concludes by identifying four critical knowledge gaps. In addition, the findings will be useful for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and educators in developing effective mitigation and adaptation strategies.

1 Introduction

Climate change, considered among the most severe worldwide problems of the 21st century, continues to command global focus among academics, environmentalists, policy makers and international debates in both scientific and political spheres [Ihemeson, 2024; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2023; Kilicarslan and Dumrul, 2017]. Since the 1990s, the phenomenon has sparked significant concern, primarily due to its adverse long-term effects on agricultural productivity, food security, water resources, and rural livelihoods [Acaroglu et al., 2023; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2022]. Climate change is defined as a long-term shift in temperatures and weather patterns attributed directly or indirectly to human activity, as well as natural climate variability that alters the composition of the global atmosphere observed over a comparable period [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate (UNFCCC), 1992].

Climate change is a crucial element of the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, highlighted in SDG 13, which calls for immediate action to combat its effects [Ngarava et al., 2019; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2016]. International efforts like the Paris Agreement aim to cap global warming at “well under” 2°C, preferably 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2015]. However, global temperatures have already risen by ~1.1°C since that era, leading to more severe and frequent climate disasters [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2022; World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), 2024]. Forecasts suggest that unless substantial mitigation measures are taken, worldwide temperatures may rise to 4°C by 2100, possibly causing severe and permanent ecological disruptions [International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2022].

Climate change is a deeply social (Gounaridis and Newell, 2024), political (Lee et al., 2024), and cultural issue (Zhai et al., 2024) that cuts across global inequalities [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2021; Nofirman et al., 2025]. Climate change is attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide (CO₂). methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCS), perfluorocarbons (PFCS), and Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which originate from industrial activities and fossil fuel consumption, with developed countries being the predominant contributors [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2022; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1998]. However, its impacts are distributed unevenly, with the world's poorest and most vulnerable communities bearing the brunt of the consequences [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2022]. Small Island Developing States (SIDS), low-income nations, and marginalized populations are disproportionately affected by climate-related disasters such as rising sea levels, droughts, extreme weather events, and loss of biodiversity [Bajaj et al., 2025; Gounaridis and Newell, 2024; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2022; Thomas et al., 2020]. These impacts threaten food and water security, displace populations, and erode traditional cultural and social structures. Importantly, many of these communities have contributed the least to global greenhouse gas emissions, yet they face the greatest risks [Ali et al., 2024; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2022].

The politics of climate change are deeply entangled in global power dynamics (Jeong and Silverman, 2025; Saeed, 2024). Wealthy countries in the Global North not only have greater historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions but also often dictate the terms of international climate policy and finance [Choi et al., 2024; HadŽić, 2024; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2023]. Trade agreements, transnational supply chains, and extractive economic models led by the Global North often externalize environmental costs onto poorer countries in the Global South (HadŽić, 2024; Hassan, 2024). These economic structures reinforce colonial patterns of exploitation, where natural resources and labor are extracted from the Global South to fuel consumption in the Global North—further entrenching environmental and social disparities [HadŽić, 2024; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2021; Mercer and Simpson, 2023].

Culturally, climate change challenges long-held identities, practices, and belief systems, especially among Indigenous peoples and traditional communities [Shanaah et al., 2024; World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), 2024]. The loss of land, sacred sites, and customary livelihoods due to climate change is not only an ecological loss but also a profound cultural trauma. These communities, while often most vulnerable, are also repositories of alternative knowledge systems and practices that are essential for building resilient and sustainable futures [Aktürk and Hauser, 2024; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2022; World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), 2024].

The role of theories in scientific research remains a contentious topic in the production of knowledge (Collins and Stockton, 2018). A theory is a scientifically acceptable set of principles offered to explain a phenomenon. Theories provide frameworks for interpreting environmental observations and serve as bridges between research and education (Schunk, 2012; Suppes, 1974). A theory is defined as a network of concepts and propositions detailing interrelations among various phenomena. A theory explains how phenomena relate to each other, and what can be expected under unknown conditions (Kwasnicka et al., 2016). Theories provide the lenses through which phenomena are understood, predictions are made, and interventions are designed (Collins and Stockton, 2018; Luft et al., 2022).

In the context of climate change, theoretical frameworks are essential for uncovering the underlying power dynamics, cultural contexts, and systemic inequalities that shape its impacts (Boylan et al., 2018; Schweizer et al., 2013). In climate change research, theories are drawn from fields such as environmental science, political ecology, economics, sociology, and communication studies (Billi et al., 2019; Domingues and Teixeira, 2024). The theories help to explain the drivers of climate change, predict its consequences, and propose solutions (Arteaga et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023). Conducting a systematic theoretical review of climate change is crucial to advancing interdisciplinary integration, guiding future empirical research, and strengthening policy frameworks (Berrang-Ford et al., 2015; Schweizer et al., 2013).

Empirical scientific studies have highlighted several theories of climate change including the carbon dioxide theory of climate change (Plass, 1956), Astronomical theory of climate change (Berger and Loutre, 2004), Milankovitch theory of climate change (Berger, 2009) and greenhouse theory of climate change (Ramanathan, 1988). Furthermore, theoretical literature reviews have been conducted on climate change. For instance; Daddi et al. (2018) conducted a systematic review of the use of organization and management theories in climate change studies. Gumel (2022) conducted a conceptual and theoretical review assessing climate change vulnerability. While the studies have identified some of the theories related to climate change, their primary focus was on vulnerability, organizational, and management theories in climate change studies, rather than on the broader theoretical foundations of climate change itself. Soler and Marcé (2018) conducted a theoretical review on sustainable companies, addressing climate change. Similar to the study conducted by Daddi et al. (2018), the study by Soler and Marcé (2018) as well as focused on the organization and management theories in climate change studies, specifically in sustainable companies.

Existing reviews have examined various theories of climate change, but none provides a comprehensive synthesis of the emerging theoretical perspectives in climate change research. These perspectives include: social-ecological systems (SES) theory (Hossain et al., 2024; Talukder et al., 2024), planetary boundaries theory (Mathias et al., 2017), complex adaptive systems (CAS) theory (Talukder et al., 2024), climate change justice theory (Baxi, 2016), climate colonialism and degrowth theory (Tornel, 2019), more-than-human & multispecies theory (Tschakert et al., 2021), post-normal science and trans disciplinarity theory (Krauss et al., 2012; Lidskog, 2025), geoengineering governance theories (Baiman, 2025), and narrative and discourse theories (Kulaeva, 2025; Pétursdóttir, 2017), along with their practical implications for addressing climate change. A systematic and comprehensive analysis of climate change theories is still urgently needed, one that incorporates these emerging theoretical perspectives, clearly differentiates between the various theories, and strengthens both their conceptual foundations and practical policy applications. Furthermore, theories from other disciplines, including economics, political science, sociology, management, cultural studies, and psychology, have been applied to explain climate change, making the landscape more intricate, necessitating a more systematic and objective approach to identifying, categorizing, and understanding these theories.

Through a systematic theoretical review and thematic analysis of 73 articles and reports, this study makes three significant contributions to climate change literature. First, it systematically identifies, categorizes, and analyzes the primary theories of climate change. Second, it provides a comprehensive interdisciplinary synthesis of theories from other disciplines, including economics, political science, sociology, management, cultural studies, and psychology that have been that have been used to explain climate change. Third, it synthesizes emerging theoretical perspectives in climate change research, offering an integrated theoretical foundation to guide future research in the field.

2 Methodology

This study employed a systematic theoretical review methodology to identify, assess, and synthesize existing scholarly publications on climate change theories and emerging theoretical perspectives. The systematic theoretical review approach was selected because of its rigorous, transparent, and reproducible framework in selecting relevant high-quality and relevant literature, encompassing both peer-reviewed publications and gray literature that address a specific research question (Elasu et al., 2023; Moher et al., 2009; Page et al., 2021; Wassie and Adaramola, 2019). The review process adhered to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and followed the established protocols for performing systematic reviews developed by Liberati et al. (2009) and Moher et al. (2009).

2.1 Formulating research questions

As mentioned earlier, systematic literature reviews aim to provide answers to well-defined research questions. This review of theoretical literature seeks to address three key questions:

• What are key theories of climate change, how are they categorized?

• What theories from other disciplines have been applied to explain climate change?

• What are the emerging theoretical perspectives in climate change research?

2.2 Search for articles and gray literature

To search for relevant journal articles and gray literature, multiple search engines, databases, and academic journals were utilized. This study sourced the journal articles from well-known databases, including Science Direct, Taylor & Francis, Emerald, and Google Scholar, which offer extensive collections of academic literature. These databases were selected due to their broad coverage of peer-reviewed research across diverse disciplines, such as science, engineering, and social sciences, making them ideal for this study (Elasu et al., 2023; Elsevier, 2024; Emerald, 2013; Taylor and Francis, 2023). Google General was also utilized to supplement the search. Peer-reviewed journals were selected based on their Journal Impact Factor.

2.3 Search strategy

2.3.1 Search terms and strings

To identify appropriate published journal articles and gray literature from databases and journals, the following search terms, strings, and Boolean operators were used: “Theories of climate change,” “Theories AND climate change,” “Theories of global warming,” “Theories AND global warming,” “Economics AND theories of climate change,” “Sociology AND theories of climate change,” “Politics AND theories of climate change.” “Management AND theories of climate change,” “Cultural studies AND theories of climate change,” “Psychology AND theories of climate change,” “Social-ecological systems (SES) theory AND climate change,” “Planetary boundaries theory AND climate change,” “Climate change justice theory, “Anthropocene studies AND climate change,” “Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) Theory AND climate change,” “Post-normal science & transdisciplinarity AND climate change,” “Climate colonialism & degrowth theory AND climate change,” “More-than-human & multispecies theory AND climate change.” “Narrative & discourse theories AND climate change,” and “Geoengineering governance theories AND climate change.”

2.3.2 Inclusion and exclusion strategy

As detailed in Table 1, this study imposed no time restriction on the selection of journal articles and gray literature to ensure a comprehensive review of all relevant literature, including foundational studies and authoritative gray literature. While peer-reviewed journal articles were prioritized, supplementary gray literature from reputable organizations was also incorporated. Only reports meeting these credibility standards were included, with all other documents excluded from consideration.

2.4 Material collection

The last search for published journal articles and gray literature was conducted on April 25, 2025. Each search word was entered differently on Science Direct, Taylor & Francis, Emerald, and Google Scholar, and the results were recorded separately, as shown in Table 2. A total of 1,914,656 articles and reports were identified through electronic search, distributed as follows: Science direct (1,003,700), Taylor and Francis (199,356), Emerald (265,356), Google scholar (446,233) and 11 gray literature were hand searched from google general. Following initial title and abstract screening, we excluded 1,914,394 articles. Subsequent eligibility assessment narrowed the selection to 73 articles and reports. These qualifying records (detailed in Figure 1) were subsequently analyzed to address the research questions outlined in Section 2.1.

Figure 1

2.5 Data charting

The data from each reviewed paper was recorded into an Excel file to include the year, author, journal, and information obtained from the questions. Following that, the first stage of analysis (descriptive analysis) was conducted utilizing an Excel spreadsheet.

3 Findings

3.1 Descriptive analysis

This section systematically analyzes the 73 articles and reports included in this study (see Table 3), which provides a summary of Journal Articles and reports and summarizes the findings in tables and figures along multiple dimensions or categories for simple presentation and interpretation.

3.1.1 Articles and reports by publication year

Figure 2 illustrates the yearly distribution of the 73 records (articles and reports). Publication frequency peaked in recent years, with 15 records appearing in 2016–2017 (7 and 8 records, respectively). A significant portion (23 records) were published between 2020 and 2025. The remaining 35 records span 1955–2019, including 5 records from 2008. The increasing scholarly attention on climate change theories reflects the growing recognition of their complexity and interdisciplinary relevance, bridging other disciplines such as economics, political science, sociology, management, cultural studies, and psychology, alongside emerging theoretical perspectives.

Figure 2

3.1.2 Articles and reports by journals and institutions

As detailed in Table 4, the analyzed articles and reports originated from diverse academic journals and reputable organizations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Climate Change emerged as the most frequent sources, contributing four and three publications, respectively. Other notable journals, including Annual Review of Political Science, Climate Dynamics, Climate of the Past, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, and Tellus A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography, each supplied two articles. The remaining sources listed in Table 4 were represented by single publications.

3.2 Synthesis

This section presents the synthesis of the reviewed articles and reports based on the specific questions guiding the review, as follows.

3.2.1 Theories of climate change

The analysis of the reviewed articles and reports reveals that climate change has been explained by nine (9) primary theories. These theories can be thematically organized into four distinct categories: natural climate forcing theories, atmospheric and chemical composition theories, human-centric theories, and complex systems & emerging theories as illustrated in Table 5.

3.2.2 Theories from other disciplines applied to explain climate change

As illustrated in Table 6, various theories from other disciplines, such as economics, political science, sociology, management, cultural studies, and psychology, have been applied to explain climate change. Six thematic categories of these cross-disciplinary theories were identified: economic theories, political science theories, sociological theories, management theories, cultural studies theories, and psychology theories.

3.2.3 Emerging theoretical perspectives in climate change research

Several emerging theoretical perspectives in climate change research have been identified as listed in Table 7. The emerging theoretical perspectives in climate change research are grouped into four thematic clusters: systems-based theories, justice and equity theories, post-humanist and knowledge theories, and governance and technological theories.

4 Discussion

4.1 Theories of climate change

4.1.1 Human-centric theories

Human-centric theories (anthropogenic climate change theory and atmospheric justice: A political theory of climate change) emphasize human agency and structural inequalities as the primary drivers of climate change. Anthropogenic climate change theory is the most widely cited theory, accounting for 37.5% (12 papers) of the reviewed literature. Proposed by Callendar (1938), and popularized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1990), the core idea of the theory is that human activities such as fossil fuels consumption, deforestation, and industry are the primary drivers of recent global climate change [Callendar, 1938; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2023]. The predominance of this theory reflects the strong scientific consensus among academics, environmentalists, policy makers and international debates in both scientific and political spheres that human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the principal drivers of current climate change (Carmo and Nunes, 2008; Engels, 2016; Hillerbrand and Ghil, 2008; Johns et al., 2003; Matthews et al., 2004; Redlin and Gries, 2021; Stern and Kaufmann, 2014; von Storch and Stehr, 2006). However, climate change skepticism and denialism are increasing, offering significant challenges to the global consensus on climate action, impacting both policy-making and public perception (Biddlestone et al., 2022; Bolsen and Druckman, 2018; Tyagi and Carley, 2021; Uscinski et al., 2017). Despite climate experts' unanimous agreement that climate change is real and man-made, over 40% of Americans disagree (Uscinski and Olivella, 2017). Additionally, conspiracy theories about climate change origins and impacts exist, despite significant scientific consensus (Biddlestone et al., 2022).

The atmospheric justice: A political theory of climate change (9.4%, 3 papers) was proposed by Shue (1993), further developed by others (Caney, 2005; Lane, 2016; Vanderheiden, 2008), the core idea of the theory is that climate change is an ethical and political issue; emphasizing that historical emitters bear greater responsibility for mitigation and adaptation (Caney, 2005; Lane and Rosenblum, 2017; Shue, 1993; Vanderheiden, 2008). This theory is particularly influential in debates on climate justice, highlighting disparities between high-emitting industrialized nations and vulnerable developing countries. Its inclusion signals growing interdisciplinary engagement with climate change beyond purely physical sciences (Choi et al., 2024; HadŽić, 2024). Critics argue that it's difficult to implement in international policy due to conflicting national interests (Posner and Sunstein, 2007).

4.1.2 Natural climate forcing theories

Natural climate forcing theories (astronomical and Milankovitch theories of climate change) examine planetary-scale physical mechanisms that drive climate change independent of human influence. The astronomical theory of climate change (6.3%, 2 papers), was proposed by Agassiz (1838) and Adhémar (1842), later refined by Le Verrier (1855), Croll (1875), and Murphy (1876). The theory suggests that variations in Earth's orbit (orbital motion, rotational motion, and insolation) influence solar radiation distribution, leading to ice ages and interglacial periods (Berger, 2009; Croll, 1864; Imbrie and Imbrie, 1980; Smulsky, 2016). Critics argue that the theory lacks explanatory power for rapid modern climate change, as orbital cycles operate over tens of thousands of years (Ruddiman, 2006).

Milankovitch Theory (21.9%, 7 papers) was proposed by Milankovitch (1941), a Serbian engineer and mathematician. The Milankovitch theory states that periodic oscillations in the Earth's orbital cycles produce analogous periodicity in climate variation lasting 19,000 to 1,200,000 years (Berger, 1988, 2021; Pollard et al., 1980; Puetz et al., 2016). Despite a large body of data on the relationship between global ice volume and insolation changes caused by fluctuations in the Earth's orbit the theory remains undefined (Roe, 2006).

4.1.3 Atmospheric composition theories

Atmospheric composition theories (greenhouse and carbon dioxide theories of climate change) elucidate how changes in the Earth's gaseous envelope regulate global climate through radiative and chemical processes. The greenhouse theory of climate change was proposed by Fourier (1824), experimentally validated by Arrhenius (1896). The core idea of the theory is that certain atmospheric gases e.g., carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄) trap infrared radiation, warming the planet (Fleming, 1999; Mudge, 1997; Pierrehumbert, 2010). Critics argue that early models oversimplified feedback mechanisms; modern critiques focus on underestimating cloud dynamics (Allmendinger, 2017; Sherwood et al., 2020).

The carbon dioxide theory of climate change was proposed by Arrhenius (1896). The theory directly links atmospheric CO₂ concentrations to global temperature changes (Arrhenius, 1896; Plass, 1956). Critics argue that early calculations overestimated climate sensitivity; later research incorporated feedback loops [Fleming, 2020; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2021]. The limited representation of greenhouse and carbon dioxide theories of climate change in recent literature may indicate that these foundational theories have been absorbed into broader anthropogenic theory of climate change.

4.1.4 Complex systems theories

Complex systems theories (dynamical paleoclimatology, Telemorphosis, and the chilling stars theories of climate change) provide a paradigm shift in climate science by conceptualizing Earth's climate as a dynamic, interconnected system characterized by feedback loops, tipping elements, and emergent properties. The Dynamical Paleoclimatology: Generalized Theory of Global Climate Change (6.3%, 2 papers), was proposed by Saltzman (2002). The theory integrates Milankovitch cycles with non-linear feedbacks e.g., ocean circulation, ice-albedo to explain abrupt climate shifts (Maasch et al., 2005; Saltzman, 1990, 2002). Critics argue that the theory is highly complex, making it difficult to apply to contemporary climate predictions (Rial et al., 2004).

The Telemorphosis: Theory in the Era of Climate Change (3.1%, 1 paper) was proposed by Morton (2012). According to theory, climate change disrupts traditional spatial/temporal scales, requiring new philosophical frameworks (Morton et al., 2012). Climate change can be explained by issues such as ecologies of war, post-carbon philosophy, ecotechnics, time, unicity, scale, post-trauma, and health (Cohen, 2012). Critics argue that the theory is abstract and lacking empirical testability (Cohen, 2012).

The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change (3.1%, 1 paper) was proposed by Svensmark and Calder (2007). The theory argues that cosmic rays seed cloud formation, modulating Earth's albedo and temperature (Svensmark and Calder, 2007). Critics argue that the theory has limited experimental support; most studies find GHG forcing dominates (Pierce and Adams, 2009). The marginal presence of the dynamical paleoclimatology, Telemorphosis, and the chilling stars theories of climate change suggests either limited empirical support or nascent stages of academic acceptance.

4.2 Theories from other disciplines applied to explain climate change

4.2.1 Economic theories

Economic theories dominate the interdisciplinary landscape, particularly the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) theory. The theory was proposed by Kuznets (1955), and was later adapted by Grossman and Krueger (1991). Other researchers who contributed to the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) Theory include Shafik and Bandyopadhyay (1992), Grossman and Krueger (1993), Selden and Song (1994), Panayotou (1993), Holtz-Eakin and Selden (1992), and Cropper and Griffiths (1994). The theory suggests that an inverted U-shaped relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation, positing that pollution increases during early development but decreases after reaching a certain income threshold (Aruga, 2019; Dinda, 2004; Gill et al., 2017; Grossman and Krueger, 1994; Gyamfi et al., 2021; He et al., 2021; Kasioumi and Stengos, 2020; Kuznets, 1955; Maneejuk et al., 2020; Stern, 2004). While this framework has been influential in shaping policy debates about sustainable development pathways, it has faced substantial criticism for its deterministic assumptions about technological progress and its failure to account for ecological thresholds (Stern, 2004). The economic theory (1 paper) typically focuses on market-based solutions to climate change, such as carbon pricing mechanisms, though these approaches often neglect distributional impacts and non-market values (Peters et al., 1999; Spash, 2007).

4.2.2 Political science theories

The political theory of climate change draws on Dryzek's (2013) work to examine how power asymmetries and governance structures shape climate policy outcomes (Dryzek, 2013). This perspective highlights the challenges of multilateral cooperation in addressing transboundary environmental problems, particularly the persistent North-South divide in climate negotiations (Dryzek, 2013; Lane and Rosenblum, 2017; Newell et al., 2015). However, critics note that the theory struggles to explain why certain political systems are more effective than others in implementing climate policies, pointing to the need for more comparative institutional analyses (Harrison, 2010).

4.2.3 Sociological theories

Sociological theories (social choice, social capital, social contract, social learning, social network, social identity, and social movement theories) collectively emphasize the social dimensions of climate change. For example, the social movement theory (McAdam, 2017; Rootes, 2013) examines how grassroots activism influences climate change policy, while social network theory (Kreft et al., 2023) analyzes information diffusion through social systems. Social identity theory (Fielding and Hornsey, 2016; van der Linden, 2015) helps explain polarized climate change beliefs, and social learning theory (Nurkasanah and Sarwoprasodjo, 2024; Pahl-Wostl, 2007) explores how communities adapt to climate impacts. Social choice theory (Dietz, 2003; Schofield, 2015) analyzes how collective decisions on climate change policy are made, considering voting systems, preference aggregation, and public opinion. Social capital theory (Adger, 2003; Carmen et al., 2022) posits that trust, networks, and community cohesion enhance adaptive capacity to climate change. Social contract theory (Doshi and Garschagen, 2023; Kirchmair, 2023) highlights the importance of collective action and shared responsibility for addressing the global climate change challenge. These theories provide valuable insights into human behavior and collective action on climate change, though they often lack integration with structural political-economic analyses (Shove, 2010).

4.2.4 Management theories

Management theories (actor-network, agency, contingency, diffusion of innovation, ethical, game, institutional, planned behavior, resource-based view (RBV), stakeholder, and structuration theories) contribute numerous theoretical lenses to understand organizational responses to climate change. For example, the stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1999; Izzania et al., 2024) examines corporate climate change strategies, while institutional theory (Comyns, 2018; Dimaggio and Powell, 1983) explains isomorphic pressures in sustainability in climate change reporting. The resource-based view (Barney, 1991; Cristina De Stefano et al., 2016) analyzes competitive advantages from green innovations. Actor-network theory (ANT) (Besel, 2011; Blok, 2010) views climate change as a network of human and non-human actors, e.g., scientists, policymakers. Agency theory (Basak, 2017) examines international climate change financing accountability regimes. Contingency theory (Furlan Matos Alves et al., 2017) posits that organizational effectiveness depends on fitting structure to low-carbon operations management. Diffusion of innovation theory (Sichach, 2024) explains how new ideas, e.g., renewable technology, are spread through social systems via communication channels over time. Ethical theory (Broome, 2008) explores the moral implications of climate change, focusing on issues like responsibility for emissions and the obligation to act for future generations. The game theory (Buck et al., 2022; Madani, 2011) develops a conceptual framework with which to analyze climate change as a strategic or dynamic game. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Arya and Kumar, 2023) can be applied to understand and predict individual behavior related to climate change. Structuration theory (Bastien et al., 1995; Wyss, 2013) provides a framework for understanding the relationship between human agency and social structures, useful in analyzing climate change. While these theories offer micro-level insights into firm behavior, they help shape the dominant perception of climate change as a strategic issue in organizational and management studies, not as a societal or ethical issue (Daddi et al., 2018).

4.2.5 Cultural and psychological theories

The cultural theory (McNeeley and Lazrus, 2014; Verweij et al., 2022) examines how worldviews shape climate change risk perceptions, while conspiracy theory (Lewandowsky et al., 2013; Tam and Chan, 2023) explores psychological barriers to climate change action. These approaches highlight the importance of subjective interpretations in climate change debates, though they sometimes underemphasize material interests and institutional power (Hulme, 2009).

4.3 Emerging theoretical perspectives in climate change research

4.3.1 Systems-based theories

Systems-based theories (social-ecological systems (SES), planetary boundaries, and complex adaptive systems (CAS) theories) have transformed climate science by emphasizing interconnectedness, feedback loops, and non-linear dynamics. For example, social-ecological systems (SES) theory (Folke et al., 2016) recognizes the intertwined nature of social and ecological systems and how they mutually influence each other. This theory is particularly relevant to understanding and addressing the impacts of climate change, as climate change is a complex multifaceted issue that affects both natural ecosystems and human societies [Hossain et al., 2024; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2021]. The Planetary Boundaries theory (Rockström et al., 2009) identifies nine critical Earth System processes, including climate change, that must be kept within safe operating space to maintain a stable and resilient Earth (see Figure 3). Climate change, specifically, is one of the boundaries that has already been crossed, with human activities increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and altering the planet's energy balance (Mathias et al., 2017). While influential in policy circles e.g., the 1.5°C target in the Paris Agreement, debates persist about the rigidity of these thresholds and their equity implications, particularly regarding historical responsibility (Biermann et al., 2022).

Figure 3

Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) theory provides a framework for understanding climate change by recognizing that the climate system and related human-environment interactions are complex and dynamic, with emergent behaviors and tipping points, such as Amazon dieback or Atlantic circulation collapse that are difficult to predict (Levin et al., 2013; Talukder et al., 2024).

4.3.2 Justice and equity theories

Justice-oriented theories (climate change justice, environmental justice, and climate colonialism and degrowth theories) have reshaped climate discourse by centering historical responsibility, power imbalances, and systemic inequalities. Climate change justice theory argues that climate change impacts are not evenly distributed, and that historically marginalized and vulnerable populations, particularly those in the Global South, are disproportionately affected by the climate crisis despite contributing the least to greenhouse gas emissions (Baxi, 2016; Choi et al., 2024; HadŽić, 2024). Environmental justice theory argues that all people, regardless of race, income, or other characteristics, have the right to a healthy and safe environment (Ali, 2006; Scott, 2014). Climate colonialism and degrowth theory (Hickel, 2020) expose how “green” transitions often reproduce colonial extraction patterns, particularly through carbon offsetting and renewable energy supply chains. Climate colonialism refers to the disproportionate burden and vulnerability of marginalized communities, particularly in the Global South, to climate change impacts, often exacerbated by historical and ongoing colonial structures (Bhambra and Newell, 2022; Sultana, 2022). Degrowth theory proposes that economic growth is incompatible with a sustainable future and the need to address climate change, arguing for a deliberate scaling down of production and consumption to prioritize ecological balance and social wellbeing (Smith et al., 2021; Tornel, 2019; Warlenius, 2023). These theories advocate for consumption reduction and debt cancellation for climate-vulnerable nations but face significant political resistance in growth-oriented economies (Choi et al., 2024; HadŽić, 2024).

4.3.3 Post-humanist and knowledge theories

Post-humanist and knowledge theories (more-than-human and multispecies, post-normal science and transdisciplinarity theories) challenge anthropocentrism by recognizing non-human agency in climate change systems. The “more-than-human” and “multispecies” theory on climate change expands the traditional human-centric focus, emphasizing the interconnectedness of all life forms and the environment. This approach encourages a relational understanding of the climate change crisis, acknowledging the responsibilities and impacts on other species and ecosystems, and promoting more just and sustainable futures (Pétursdóttir, 2017; Price and Chao, 2023; Tschakert et al., 2021). Post-normal science and transdisciplinarity theory advocates for knowledge co-production, integrating scientific, indigenous, and local knowledge through participatory methods to address climate change (Krauss et al., 2012; Lidskog, 2025; Norström et al., 2020).

4.3.4 Governance and technological theories

Governance and technological theories (geoengineering governance and narrative and discourse theories) examine how institutions, policies, and technological innovations shape climate change action. Geoengineering governance theory addresses the ethical, political, and regulatory dilemmas surrounding large-scale climate interventions e.g., solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon removal (Baiman, 2025; Reynolds and Horton, 2020). The narrative and discourse theory examines how stories, narratives, language, media, storytelling, youth-led counter-narratives, and political actors shape perceptions of climate change and policy responses (Kulaeva, 2025; Moezzi et al., 2017). These theories are vital because climate change is not just a scientific or technical problem—it's a socio-political challenge requiring coordinated institutions and cutting-edge solutions (Hulme, 2015).

5 Conclusion

This systematic theoretical review examined existing theories of climate change, as well as interdisciplinary theories from economics, political science, sociology, management, cultural studies, and psychology that have been used to explain climate change, while also identifying emerging theoretical perspectives. The findings highlight the multidimensional nature of climate change theories, encompassing four primary climate change theories, interdisciplinary theories, and emerging theoretical perspectives. This variation suggests that no single theory can fully explain the complexity of climate change, necessitating an integrated approach. These findings are in line with Weyant et al. (1995) and Parson and Fisher-Vanden (2003) who emphasize integrated assessment modeling of global climate change. The review revealed that anthropogenic climate change theory dominates the literature, representing 37.5% (12 papers) of the reviewed literature, reinforcing the strong scientific consensus among academics, environmentalists, and policymakers that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are the primary drivers of current climate change. This finding is in line with Lynas et al. (2021) and Abraham et al. (2014) who concluded that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature. However, while anthropogenic theory remains central, its integration with other theories has created a more comprehensive understanding of the climate change crisis. The distribution of these theories in the literature also research indicates prevailing trends, with a strong focus on human-induced factors alongside traditional Earth-system-based explanations. Ultimately, the study affirms that addressing climate change requires a synthesis of scientific, socio-political, and systemic perspectives to develop effective mitigation and adaptation strategies. This finding is in line with Casado-Asensio and Steurer (2014) and Goklany (2007) who emphasize integrated strategies on sustainable development, climate change mitigation and adaptation.

5.1 Areas for future research and policy implications

The diverse theoretical perspectives explored in this study lay the foundation for more innovative and holistic approaches to tackling the climate change crisis. While the multidimensional nature of climate change theories is well-established, significant research gaps persist, necessitating further investigation. Future studies should focus on four key areas: First, constructing a unified theoretical framework that bridges the primary climate change theories, interdisciplinary theories, and emerging theoretical perspectives; Second, translating interdisciplinary and emerging theories into actionable and measurable policy solutions; Third, validating emerging theoretical perspectives across different geographical and socio-political contexts; and Fourth, fostering translational research that links the theoretical insights with real-world applications in various sectors. Addressing these gaps will enhance both scholarly understanding and practical climate change action.

The diverse theoretical perspectives on climate change discussed in this study offer critical insights for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and educators in developing effective mitigation and adaptation strategies.

5.1.1 For policymakers

The dominance of anthropogenic climate change theory underscores the urgent need for policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions through stringent regulations, carbon pricing, and incentives for renewable energy adoption. However, the Milankovitch and astronomical theories remind policymakers to consider long-term climatic cycles in infrastructure and agricultural planning. Atmospheric justice and political science theories highlight the necessity of equitable climate policies that address historical disparities in emissions and vulnerability, ensuring that marginalized communities are not disproportionately burdened. Economic theories suggest market-based solutions e.g., carbon trading and green investments, while governance and technological theories emphasize adaptive policymaking that integrates emerging innovations like carbon capture and AI-driven climate modeling. Justice and equity theories further call for inclusive decision-making processes, ensuring that climate policies are co-designed with affected populations.

5.1.2 For industry stakeholders

The anthropogenic and greenhouse gas theories reinforce corporate responsibility in decarbonizing operations through cleaner technologies and circular economy practices. Management and economic theories advocate sustainable business models that align profitability with climate resilience. Systems-based theories encourage industries to adopt holistic approaches, recognizing interconnected risks in supply chains and ecosystems. Cultural and psychological theories suggest that corporate climate action should also address consumer behavior, leveraging social norms and values to drive sustainable consumption. Meanwhile, governance and technological theories push industries to invest in research and development (R&D) for low-carbon innovations while engaging in multi-stakeholder climate partnerships.

5.1.3 For educators

The interdisciplinary nature of climate change calls for curricula that integrate the primary climate change theories, e.g., Milankovitch cycles, dynamical paleoclimatology, with social science theories, e.g., atmospheric justice, sociological theories, to foster a comprehensive understanding among students. Post-humanist and knowledge theories encourage critical engagement with indigenous and local ecological knowledge, broadening the discourse beyond Western scientific paradigms. Justice and equity theories should inform climate education to emphasize ethical responsibility, while system-based approaches can help students analyze climate change as a complex, interconnected challenge. Educators must also leverage psychological and cultural theories to design engagement strategies that motivate pro-environmental behavior rather than inducing climate anxiety.

Collectively, these theoretical insights demand a multi-dimensional, justice-centered, and adaptive approach to climate action—one that bridges scientific rigor, socio-political equity, and practical innovation across all sectors.

References

• 1

  AbrahamJ. P.CookJ.FasulloJ. T.JacobsP. H.MandiaS. A.NuccitelliD. A.et al. (2014). Review of the consensus and asymmetric quality of research on human-induced climate change. Rev. Cosmopolit.1, 3–18.

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AcarogluH.GüllüM.SeçilmişC. (2023). Climate change, the by-product of tourism and energy consumption through a sustainable economic growth: a non-linear ARDL analysis for Turkey. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.30, 81585–81599. 10.1007/s11356-023-26927-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AdgerW. N. (2003). Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Econ. Geogr.79, 387–404. 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2003.tb00220.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AdhémarJ. A. (1842). Révolution des Mers, Déluges Périodiques. Paris: Publication privée.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AgassizL. (1838). Upon glaciers, moraines, and erratic blocks. New Philoss. J. 24, 364–383.

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AktürkG.HauserS. J. (2024). Integrated understanding of climate change and disaster risk for building resilience of cultural heritage sites. Nat. Haz.121, 4309–4334. 10.1007/s11069-024-06970-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AliA. (2006). A conceptual framework for environmental justice based on shared but differentiated responsibilities. Interface Prob. Bound.17, 41–77. 10.1163/9789401201452_007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AliS.KhanZ. A.AzharM.RaheemI. (2024). Investigating the disproportionate effects of climate change on marginalized groups and the concept of climate justice in policy-making. Rev. Educ. Administ. Law7, 369–381. 10.47067/real.v7i4.390

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  AllmendingerT. (2017). The refutation of the climate greenhouse theory and a proposal for a hopeful alternative. Environ. Pollut. Clim. Change1, 1–19. 10.4172/2573-458X.1000123

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  ArrheniusS. (1896). On the influence of Carbonic Acid upon the Temperature of the Ground. Philos. Magaz. J. Sci. 41, 237–276. 10.1080/14786449608620846

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  ArteagaE.NalauJ.BiesbroekR.HowesM. (2023). Unpacking the theory-practice gap in climate adaptation. Clim. Risk Manag.42:100567. 10.1016/j.crm.2023.100567

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  ArugaK. (2019). Investigating the energy-environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for the Asia-Pacific region. Sustainability11:2395. 10.3390/su11082395

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  AryaB.KumarH. (2023). An investigation of climate change, eco-anxiety and risk perception in the context of theory of planned behaviour. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.1279:012020. 10.1088/1755-1315/1279/1/012020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  BaimanR. (2025). Only direct climate cooling (or geoengineering) can reduce near term climate harm - though GHG emissions cuts and removal are essential in the long term, and four other critically. Geol. Eng.1–22.

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  BajajK.MehrabiZ.KastnerT.JägermeyrJ.MüllerC.SchwarzmüllerF.et al. (2025). Current food trade helps mitigate future climate change impacts in lower-income nations. PLoS ONE20:e0314722. 10.1371/journal.pone.0314722

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  BarneyJ. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag.17, 99–120. 10.1177/014920639101700108

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  BasakR. (2017). Agency theory and international climate change financing accountability regimes. World Bank Res. Observer19, 41–60.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  BastienD. T.McPheeR. D.BoltonK. A. (1995). A study and extended theory of structuration of climate. Commun. Monogr.62, 87–109. 10.1080/03637759509376351

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  BaxiU. (2016). Towards a climate change justice theory?J. Hum. Rights. ment7, 7–31. 10.4337/jhre.2016.01.01

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  BergerA. (1988). Milankovitch theory and climate. Rev. Geophys.26, 624–657. 10.1029/RG026i004p00624

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  BergerA. (2009). “Astronomical theory of climate change,” in Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments. Dordrecht: Springer Nature Link, 51–57. 10.1007/978-1-4020-4411-3_14

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  BergerA. (2021). Milankovitch, the father of paleoclimate modeling. Clim. Past17, 1727–1733. 10.5194/cp-17-1727-2021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  BergerA.LoutreM. F. (2004). Astronomical theory of climate change. J. Phys.121, 1–35. 10.1051/jp4:2004121001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Berrang-FordL.PearceT.FordJ. D. (2015). Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research. Reg. Environ. Change15, 755–769. 10.1007/s10113-014-0708-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  BeselR. D. (2011). Opening the “black box” of climate change science: actor-network theory and rhetorical practice in scientific controversies. South. Commun. J.76, 120–136. 10.1080/10417941003642403

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  BhambraG. K.NewellP. (2022). More than a metaphor: ‘climate colonialism' in perspective. Glob. Soc. Challenges J.2, 179–187. 10.1332/EIEM6688

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  BiddlestoneM.AzevedoF.van der LindenS. (2022). Climate of conspiracy: a meta-analysis of the consequences of belief in conspiracy theories about climate change. Curr. Opin. Psychol.46:101390. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101390

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  BiermannF.HickmannT.SénitC. A.BeisheimM.BernsteinS.ChasekP.et al. (2022). Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sust.5, 795–800. 10.1038/s41893-022-00909-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  BilliM.BlancoG.UrquizaA. (2019). What is the ‘social' in climate change research? A case study on scientific representations from Chile. Minerva57, 293–315. 10.1007/s11024-019-09369-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  BlokA. (2010). Topologies of climate change: actor-network theory, relational-scalar analytics, and carbon-market overflows. Environ. Plann. D Soc. Space28, 896–912. 10.1068/d0309

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N. (2018). Validating conspiracy beliefs and effectively communicating scientific consensus. Weather Clim. Soc.10, 453–458. 10.1175/WCAS-D-17-0096.1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  BoylanS.BeyerK.SchlosbergD.MortimerA.HimeN.ScalleyB.et al. (2018). A conceptual framework for climate change, health and wellbeing in NSW, Australia. Public Health Res. Pract.28, 1–6. 10.17061/phrp2841826

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  BroomeJ. (2008). The ethics of climate change. Sci. Am.298, 96–102. 10.1038/scientificamerican0608-96

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  BuckM.SturzakerJ.MellI. (2022). Playing games around climate change–new ways of working to develop climate change resilience. J. Environ. Plann. Manag.65, 2538–2555. 10.1080/09640568.2021.1975106

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  CaesarL.SakschewskiB.AndersenL. S.BeringerT.BraunJ.DennisD.et al. (2024). Planetary Health Check A Scientific Assessment of the State of the Planet, 1st Edn. Available online at: https://www.planetaryhealthcheck.org/

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  CallendarG. S. (1938). Artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. Quart. J. R. Meteorl. Soc.64, 223–240. 10.1002/qj.49706427503

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  CaneyS. (2005). Global interdependence and distributive justice. Rev. Int. Stud.31, 389–399. 10.1017/S0260210505006534

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  CarmenE.FazeyI.RossH.BedingerM.SmithF. M.PragerK.et al. (2022). Building community resilience in a context of climate change: the role of social capital. Ambio51, 1371–1387. 10.1007/s13280-021-01678-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  CarmoR. L.NunesL. H. (2008). Climate change and human activities in Brazil with emphasis on the coastal zone. Terrae Incognitae3, 40–45.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Casado-AsensioJ.SteurerR. (2014). Integrated strategies on sustainable development, climate change mitigation and adaptation in Western Europe: communication rather than coordination. J. Public Policy34, 437–473. 10.1017/S0143814X13000287

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  CessR. D.WronkaJ. C. (1979). Ice ages and the Milankovitch theory: a study of interactive climate feedback mechanisms. Tellus A Dyn. Meteorol. Oceanogr.31:185. 10.3402/tellusa.v31i3.10425

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  ChoiY.-W.KhalifaM.EltahirE. A. B. (2024). North–South disparity in impact of climate change on “outdoor days.”J. Clim.37, 3269–3282. 10.1175/JCLI-D-23-0346.1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  CohenT. (2012). Telemorphosis: Theory in the Era of Climate Change, Vol. 1. Available online at: http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/telemorphosis/

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  CollinsC. S.StocktonC. M. (2018). The central role of theory in qualitative research. Int. J. Qualit. Methods17, 1–10. 10.1177/1609406918797475

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  ComynsB. (2018). Climate change reporting and multinational companies: insights from institutional theory and international business. Account. Forum42, 65–77. 10.1016/j.accfor.2017.07.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Cristina De StefanoM.Montes-SanchoM. J.BuschT. (2016). A natural resource-based view of climate change: innovation challenges in the automobile industry. J. Clean. Product.139, 1436–1448. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  CrollJ. (1864). XIII. On the physical cause of the change of climate during geological epochs. Philos. Magaz. Ser.2012, 37–41.

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  CrollJ. (1875). Climate and Time in their Geological Relations. London, NY: Appleton, 577.

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  CropperM.GriffithsC. (1994). The interaction of population growth and environmental quality. Am. Econ. Rev.84, 250–254.

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  DaddiT.TodaroN. M.De GiacomoM. R.FreyM. (2018). A systematic review of the use of organization and management theories in climate change studies. Business Strat. Environ.27, 456–474. 10.1002/bse.2015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  DietzT. (2003). What is a good decision? Criteria for environmental decision making. Hum. Ecol. Rev.10, 33–39.

  • Google Scholar

• 52

  DimaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. New Econ. Sociol. Reader48, 147–160. 10.2307/2095101

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  DindaS. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol. Econ.49, 431–455. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  DominguesJ. M.TeixeiraM. A. (2024). The social and sociological province of climate change: introduction. Int. J. Polit. Cult. Soc.37, 447–458. 10.1007/s10767-024-09502-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  DoshiD.GarschagenM. (2023). Assessing social contracts for urban adaptation through social listening on Twitter. npj Urban Sust.3:30. 10.1038/s42949-023-00108-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  DryzekJ. S. (2013). The deliberative democrat's idea of justice. Eur. J. Polit. Theory12, 329–346. 10.1177/1474885112466784

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  ElasuJ.NtayiJ. M.AdaramolaM. S.BuyinzaF. (2023). Drivers of household transition to clean energy fuels: a systematic review of evidence. Renew. Sust. Energy Trans.3:100047. 10.1016/j.rset.2023.100047

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  Elsevier. (2024). Your Guide to Publishing Open Access with Elsevier. Available online at: www.elsevier.com/openaccessoptions

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  Emerald. (2013). Home Page of Emerald. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited, 1–5.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  EngelsA. (2016). Anthropogenic climate change: how to understand the weak links between scientific evidence, public perception, and low-carbon practices. Energy Emiss. Control Technol.4, 17–26. 10.2147/EECT.S63005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  FieldingK. S.HornseyM. J. (2016). A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: insights and opportunities. Front. Psychol.7:112. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00121

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  FlemingJ. R. (1999). Joseph Fourier, the “greenhouse effect”, and the quest for a universal theory of terrestrial temperatures. Endeavour23, 72–75. 10.1016/S0160-9327(99)01210-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  FlemingR. J. (2020). The rise and fall of the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. Springer Nat. 1–181. 10.1007/978-3-030-16880-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  FolkeC.BiggsR.NorströmA. V.ReyersB. (2016). Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol. Soc.21:41. 10.5751/ES-08748-210341

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  FourierJ. (1824). Remarques générales sur les températures du globe terrestre et des espaces planétaires. Ann. Chim. Phys. 1–36.

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  FreemanR. E. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. Acad. Manag. Rev.24, 233–236. 10.5465/amr.1999.1893932

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Furlan Matos AlvesM. W.Lopes de Sousa JabbourA. B.KannanD.Chiappetta JabbourC. J. (2017). Contingency theory, climate change, and low-carbon operations management. Supply Chain Manag.22, 223–236. 10.1108/SCM-09-2016-0311

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  GanopolskiA. (2023). Toward generalized Milankovitch theory (GMT). Clim. Past2023, 1–71. 10.5194/cp-2023-57

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  GillA. R.ViswanathanK. K.HassanS. (2017). Is environmental Kuznets curve still relevant?Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy7, 156–165.

  • Google Scholar

• 70

  GoklanyI. M. (2007). Integrated strategies to reduce vulnerability and advance adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change12, 755–786. 10.1007/s11027-007-9098-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  GounaridisD.NewellJ. P. (2024). The social anatomy of climate change denial in the United States. Sci. Rep.14, 1–12. 10.1038/s41598-023-50591-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  GrossmanG. M.KruegerA. B. (1991). Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. NBER Working Papers 3914. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research Inc. 10.3386/w3914

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  GrossmanG. M.KruegerA. B. (1993). “Environmental impacts of a north American free trade agreement,” in The US-Mexico Free Trade Agreement, ed. P. Garber (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 383–386.

  • Google Scholar

• 74

  GrossmanG. M.KruegerA. B. (1994). “Economic growth and the environment,” in Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 2nd Edn, 1–37. 10.3386/w4634

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  GumelD. Y. (2022). Assessing climate change vulnerability: a conceptual and theoretical review. J. Sust. Environ. Manag.1, 22–31.

  • Google Scholar

• 76

  GyamfiB. A.AdebayoT. S.BekunF. V.AgyekumE. B.KumarN. M.AlhelouH. H.et al. (2021). Beyond environmental Kuznets curve and policy implications to promote sustainable development in Mediterranean. Energy Rep.7, 6119–6129. 10.1016/j.egyr.2021.09.056

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  HadŽićF. (2024). Power of global North vs. global South; Environ. Clim. Change Policies Inclus. Inequal. Frag. 8787, 2821–8787.

  • Google Scholar

• 78

  HarrisonK. (2010). Multi-Level Governance and Carbon Pricing in Canada, the United States, and the European Union. Kingston, ON: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen's University.

  • Google Scholar

• 79

  HassanP. (2024). Population, consumption and climate colonialism. J. Popul. Sust.9, 1–33. 10.3197/JPS.63799977346497

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  HeK.RamzanM.AwosusiA. A.AhmedZ.AhmadM.AltuntaşM. (2021). Does globalization moderate the effect of economic complexity on CO2 emissions? Evidence from the top 10 energy transition economies. Front. Environ. Sci.555:778088. 10.3389/fenvs.2021.778088

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  HickelJ. (2020). The sustainable development index: measuring the ecological efficiency of human development in the anthropocene. Ecol. Econ.167:106331. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  HillerbrandR.GhilM. (2008). Anthropogenic climate change: scientific uncertainties and moral dilemmas. Phys. D Nonlin. Phenom.237, 2132–2138. 10.1016/j.physd.2008.02.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  Holtz-EakinD.SeldenT. M. (1992). Stoking the Fires? Co2 Emissions and Economic Growth (December 1992). NBER Working Paper No. w4248. Available online at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=22798010.3386/w4248

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  HossainM. S.BasakS. M.AminM. N.AndersonC. C.CreminE.RenaudF. G. (2024). Social-ecological systems approach for adaptation to climate change. Sust. Dev.32, 2766–2778. 10.1002/sd.2801

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  HulmeM. (2009). Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511841200

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  HulmeM. (2015). (Still) disagreeing about climate change: which way forward?Zygon50, 893–905. 10.1111/zygo.12212

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  IhemesonO. C. (2024). An assessment of UN policies on fossil emission and climate change: implications on the national security of US, 2010-2023. J. Integr. Ecosyst. Environ.2, 8–23.

  • Google Scholar

• 88

  ImbrieJ.ImbrieJ. Z. (1980). Modeling the climatic response to orbital variations. Science207, 943–953. 10.1126/science.207.4434.943

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Climate Change 2021 The Physical Science Basis Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis. Geneva: IPCC.

  • Google Scholar

• 90

  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  • Google Scholar

• 91

  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (1990). Climate change: The IPCC response strategies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.3, 1–15.

  • Google Scholar

• 92

  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014). “Climate change 2014 mitigation of climate change working group III contribution to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change,” in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (Cambridge University Press). 10.1017/cbo9781107415416

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2022). Climate Change 2022 Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press (Issue 1).

  • Google Scholar

• 94

  International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2022). Climate Change and Energy Security: The Dilemma or Opportunity of the Century? IMF Working Papers (Washington, DC), 1. 10.5089/9798400218347.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  IzzaniaM.HardianingsihA.NurzanahE.JanimanJ. (2024). Carbon emission disclosure in indonesia: perspective of stakeholder theory. SAR J. Account. Business9, 88–98.

  • Google Scholar

• 96

  JeongS.SilvermanE. H. (2025). Bringing the politics of climate change down to earth: student descriptions of dwelling place and “Geo-Graphies” as alternative belongings. ECNU Rev. Educ. 8, 161–183. 10.1177/20965311231210316

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  JohnsT. C.GregoryJ. M.IngramW. J.JohnsonC. E.JonesA.LoweJ. A.et al. (2003). Anthropogenic climate change for 1860 to 2100 simulated with the HadCM3 model under updated emissions scenarios. Clim. Dyn.20, 583–612. 10.1007/s00382-002-0296-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  KasioumiM.StengosT. (2020). The environmental Kuznets curve with recycling: a partially linear semiparametric approach. J. Risk Finan. Manag.13:274. 10.3390/jrfm13110274

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  KilicarslanZ.DumrulY. (2017). Economic Impacts of climate change on agriculture: empirical evidence from the ARDL approach for Turkey. Pressacademia6, 336–347. 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.766

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  KirchmairL. (2023). Enforcing constitutional sustainability clauses in the age of the climate crisis: insights from social contract theory on how to take account of future generations. ICL J.17, 1–16. 10.1515/icl-2022-0001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  KraussW.SchäferM. S.von StorchH. (2012). Introduction: post-normal climate science. Nat. Cult.7, 121–132. 10.3167/nc.2012.070201

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  KreftC.AngstM.HuberR.FingerR. (2023). Farmers' social networks and regional spillover effects in agricultural climate change mitigation. Clim. Change176, 8. 10.1007/s10584-023-03484-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  KulaevaZ. (2025). Narratives of change: how climate change narratives have evolved since the 1970s. Int. J. Clim. Change Strat. Manag.17, 376–394. 10.1108/IJCCSM-06-2024-0089

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  KuznetsS. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. Am. Econ. Rev.45, 1–28.

  • Google Scholar

• 105

  KwasnickaD.DombrowskiS. U.WhiteM.SniehottaF. (2016). Theoretical explanations for maintenance of behaviour change: a systematic review of behaviour theories. Health Psychol. Rev.10, 277–296. 10.1080/17437199.2016.1151372

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  LaneM. (2016). Political theory on climate change. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.19, 107–123. 10.1146/annurev-polisci-042114-015427

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  LaneM.RosenblumN. L. (2017). The Political Theory of Climate Change: State of the Field. 1–30. Available online at: https://ssrc-cdn1.s3.amazonaws.com/crmuploads/new_publication_3/the-political-theory-of-climate-change-state-of-the-field.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 108

  Le VerrierU. J. J. (1855). Recherches astronomiques. Ann. Obs. Imp. 1–6.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  LealP. H.MarquesA. C. (2022). The evolution of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis assessment: a literature review under a critical analysis perspective. Heliyon8:e11521. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11521

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  LeeS.GoldbergM. H.RosenthalS. A.MaibachE. W.KotcherJ. E.LeiserowitzA. (2024). Climate change belief systems across political groups in the United States. PLoS ONE19:e0300048. 10.1371/journal.pone.0300048

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  LevinS.XepapadeasT.CrépinA.NorbergJ.de ZeeuwA.FolkeC.et al. (2013). Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: modeling and policy implications. Environ. Dev. Econ.18:111132. 10.1017/S1355770X12000460

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  LewandowskyS.GignacG. E.OberauerK. (2013). The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS ONE8:e75637. 10.1371/journal.pone.0075637

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  LiberatiA.AltmanD. G.TetzlaffJ.MulrowC.GøtzscheP. C.IoannidisJ. P. A.et al. (2009). Guidelines and guidance the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLOS Med.28:e1000100. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  LidskogR. (2025). Navigating global environmental challenges: disciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and the emergence of mega-expertise. Climate13:20. 10.3390/cli13010020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  LuftJ. A.JeongS.IdsardiR.GardnerG. (2022). Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks: an introduction for new biology education researchers. CBE Life Sci. Educ.21:rm33. 10.1187/cbe.21-05-0134

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  LynasM.HoultonB. Z.PerryS. (2021). Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett.16:114005. 10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  MaaschK. A.OglesbyR. J.FournierA. (2005). Barry Saltzman and the theory of climate. J. Clim.18, 2141–2150. 10.1175/JCLI3383.1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  MadaniK. (2011). Hydropower licensing and climate change: insights from cooperative game theory. Adv. Water Resour.34, 174–183. 10.1016/j.advwatres.2010.10.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  ManeejukN.RatchakomS.ManeejukP.YamakaW. (2020). Does the environmental Kuznets curve exist? An international study. Sustainability12, 1–22. 10.3390/su12219117

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  MathiasJ. D.AnderiesJ.JanssenM. (2017). On our rapidly shrinking capacity to comply with the planetary boundaries on climate change. Sci. Rep.7:42061. 10.1038/srep42061

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  MatthewsH. D.WeaverA. J.MeissnerK. J.GillettN. P.EbyM. (2004). Natural and anthropogenic climate change: incorporating historical land cover change, vegetation dynamics and the global carbon cycle. Clim. Dyn.22, 461–479. 10.1007/s00382-004-0392-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  McAdamD. (2017). Social movement theory and the prospects for climate change activism in the United States. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.20, 189–208. 10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025801

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  McNeeleyS. M.LazrusH. (2014). The cultural theory of risk for climate change adaptation. Weather Clim. Soc.6, 506–519. 10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00027.1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  MercerH.SimpsonT. (2023). Imperialism, colonialism, and climate change science. Wiley Interdiscipl. Rev. Clim. Change14, 1–17. 10.1002/wcc.851

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  MilankovitchM. (1941). Kanon der Erdbestrahlung und seine Anwendung auf des Eiszeitenproblem. R. Serbian Sci. Spec.33:633.

  • Google Scholar

• 126

  MoezziM.JandaK. B.RotmannS. (2017). Using stories, narratives, and storytelling in energy and climate change research. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.31, 1–10. 10.1016/j.erss.2017.06.034

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ339:333. 10.1136/bmj.b2535

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  MortonR. J.VerthG.JessD. B.KuridzeD.RudermanM. S.MathioudakisM.et al. (2012). Observations of ubiquitous compressive waves in the Sun's chromosphere. Nat. Commun.3, 1–8. 10.1038/ncomms2324

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  MortonT. (2012). Architecture without nature. Tarp: Architecture Manual, 20–25.

  • Google Scholar

• 130

  MudgeF. B. (1997). The development of the ‘greenhouse' theory of global climate change from victorian times. Weather52, 13–17. 10.1002/j.1477-8696.1997.tb06243.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  MurphyJ. J. (1876). The glacial climate and the polar ice-cap. Quart. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 32, 400–406. 10.1144/GSL.JGS.1876.032.01-04.45

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  NewellP.BulkeleyH.TurnerK.ShawC.CaneyS.ShoveE.et al. (2015). Governance traps in climate change politics: re-framing the debate in terms of responsibilities and rights. Clim. Change6, 535–540. 10.1002/wcc.356

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  NgaravaS.ZhouL.AyukJ.TatsvareiS. (2019). Achieving food security in a Climate change environment: considerations for environmental kuznets curve use in the South African agricultural sector. Climate7:108. 10.3390/cli7090108

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  NofirmanN.BaktiI.SantosL.SultanaM. (2025). Climate change and global inequality: a social study of climate migration. J. Soc. Sci. Utiliz. Technol. 3,‘52–61.

  • Google Scholar

• 135

  NorströmA. V.CvitanovicC.LöfM. F.WestS.WybornC.BalvaneraP.et al. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sust.3, 182–190. 10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  NurkasanahA.SarwoprasodjoS. (2024). “The lens of social learning theory: an imitation behaviour to adapting climate change in agriculture,” in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Bristol: IOP Publishing Ltd., 1359. 10.1088/1755-1315/1359/1/012058

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg.88:105906. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  Pahl-WostlC. (2007). Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resour. Manag.21, 49–62. 10.1007/s11269-006-9040-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  PanayotouT. (1993). Empirical Tests and Policy Analysis of Environmental Degradation at Different Stages of Economic Development. ILO Working Papers 992927783402676. Geneva: World Employment Programme Research, International Labour Organization.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  ParsonE. A.Fisher-VandenK. (2003). Integrated assessment models of global climate change. Annu. Rev. 22, 589–628. 10.1146/annurev.energy.22.1.589

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  PetersI.AckermanF.BernowS. (1999). Economic theory and climate change policy. Energy Policy27, 501–504. 10.1016/S0301-4215(99)00034-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  PétursdóttirP. (2017). Climate change? Archaeology and anthropocene. Archaeol. Dial.24, 175–205. 10.1017/S1380203817000216

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  PierceJ. R.AdamsP. J. (2009). Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates?Geophys. Res. Lett.36, 1–6. 10.1029/2009GL037946

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  PierrehumbertR. T. (2010). A palette of climates for Gliese 581g. Astrophys. J. Lett.726:726L8. 10.1088/2041-8205/726/1/L8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  PlassG. N. (1956). The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change. Tellus8, 140–154. 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  PollardD.IngersollA. P.LockwoodJ. G. (1980). Response of a zonal climate-ice sheet model to the orbital perturbations during the Quaternary ice ages. Tellus32, 301–319. 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1980.tb00958.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  PosnerE. A.SunsteinC. R. (2007). Climate Change Justice US of Chicago Law and Economics. Olin Working Paper No. 354, U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 177. Harvard Public Law Working Paper Forthcoming.

  • Google Scholar

• 148

  PriceC.ChaoS. (2023). Multispecies, more-than-human, non-human, other-than-human: reimagining idioms of animacy in an age of planetary unmaking. Exchanges Interdiscipl. Res. J. Price Chao Exchanges10, 177–193. 10.31273/eirj.v10i2.1166

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  PuetzS. J.ProkophA.BorchardtG. (2016). Evaluating alternatives to the Milankovitch theory. J. Stat. Plann. Inference170, 158–165. 10.1016/j.jspi.2015.10.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  RamanathanV. (1988). The greenhouse theory of climate change: a test by an inadvertent global experiment. Science240, 293–299. 10.1126/science.240.4850.293

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  RedlinM.GriesT. (2021). Anthropogenic climate change: the impact of the global carbon budget. Theoret. Appl. Climatol.146, 713–721. 10.1007/s00704-021-03764-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  ReynoldsJ. L.HortonJ. B. (2020). An earth system governance perspective on solar geoengineering. Earth Syst. Govern.3:100043. 10.1016/j.esg.2020.100043

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  RialJ.PeilkeR. A.BenidtoneM.ClaussenM.CanadellJ.CoxP.et al. (2004). Nonlinearities, feedbacks and critical thresholds within the Earth's climate system. Clim. Change65, 11–3810.1023/B:CLIM.0000037493.89489.3f

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  RockströmJ.SteffenW.NooneK.PerssonÅ.ChapinF. S.LambinE.et al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc.14, 1–35. 10.5751/ES-03180-140232

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  RoeG. (2006). In defense of Milankovitch. Geophys. Res. Lett.33, 1–5. 10.1029/2006GL027817

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  RootesC. (2013). From local conflict to national issue: when and how environmental campaigns succeed in transcending the local. Environ. Polit.22, 95–114. 10.1080/09644016.2013.755791

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  RuddimanW. F. (2006). Ice-driven CO₂/subandgt; feedback on ice volume. Clim. Past2, 43–55. 10.5194/cp-2-43-2006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  SaeedS. (2024). The impact of climate change on global power dynamics. Impact Clim. Change4, 66–84.

  • Google Scholar

• 159

  SaltzmanB. (1990). Three basic problems of paleoclimatic modeling: a personal perspective and review. Clim. Dyn.5, 67–78. 10.1007/BF00207422

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  SaltzmanB. (2002). Dynamical Paleoclimatology Generalized Theory of Global Climate Change, Vol. 6, 128. Available online at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/abs/saltzman-b-2002-dynamical-paleoclimatology-generalized-theory-of-global-climate-change-international-geophysics-series-volume-80-xxix-354-pp-san-diego-harcourtacademic-press-elsevier-

  • Google Scholar

• 161

  SchofieldN. (2015). “Individual and collective choice and social welfare: essays in honor of Nick Baigent,” in Studies in Choice and Welfare. Available online at: http://files/618/Binder and Baigent - 2015 - Individual and collective choice and social welfar.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 162

  SchunkD. H. (2012). Learning Theories an Educational Perspective, 6th Edn. Space Science Reviews, Vol. 71. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

  • Google Scholar

• 163

  SchweizerS.DavisS.ThompsonJ. L. (2013). Changing the conversation about climate change: a theoretical framework for place-based climate change engagement. Environ. Commun.7, 42–62. 10.1080/17524032.2012.753634

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  ScottD. N. (2014). What is environmental justice?SSRN Electron. J. 10, 1–13. 10.2139/ssrn.2513834

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  SeldenT. M.SongD. S. (1994). Environmental quality and development: is there a kuznets curve for air pollution emissions?J. Environ. Econ. Manag.27, 147–162. 10.1006/jeem.1994.1031

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  ShafikN.BandyopadhyayS. (1992). Economic Growth and Environmental Quality: Time Series and Cross-Country Evidence. Policy Research Working Paper Series 904. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

  • Google Scholar

• 167

  ShanaahS.FritscheI.OsmundsenM. (2024). The effect of climate change threat on public attitudes towards ethnic and religious minorities and climate refugees. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 28, 67–96. 10.1177/13684302241262252

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  SherwoodS. C.WebbM. J.AnnanJ. D.ArmourK. C.ForsterP. M.HargreavesJ. C.et al. (2020). An Assessment of earth's climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence. Rev. Geophys.58, 1–93. 10.1029/2019RG000678

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  ShoveE. (2010). Social theory and climate change: questions often, sometimes and not yet asked. Theory Cult. Soc.27, 277–288. 10.1177/0263276410361498

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  ShueH. (1993). Subsistence emissions and luxury emissions. Law Policy15, 39–60. 10.1111/j.1467-9930.1993.tb00093.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  SichachM. (2024). Applying diffusion of innovation theory to effectively advocate for sustainable climate change approaches by Northern Kenya pastoralist communities. SSRN Electron. J. 1–11. 10.2139/ssrn.4710209

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  SmithT. S. J.BaranowskiM.SchmidB. (2021). Intentional degrowth and its unintended consequences: uneven journeys towards post-growth transformations. Ecol. Econ.190:107215. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107215

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  SmulskyJ. J. (2016). Fundamental principles and results of a new astronomic theory of climate change. Adv. Astrophys.1, 1–21. 10.22606/adap.2016.11001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  SolerC. E.MarcéA. C. (2018). Sustainable companies, addressing climate change. A theoretical review. Business Manag. Stud.4:33. 10.11114/bms.v4i1.2911

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  SpashC. L. (2007). The economics of climate change impacts à la Stern: novel and nuanced or rhetorically restricted?Ecol. Econ.63, 706–713. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  SternD. I. (1998). Progress on the environmental Kuznets curve?Environ. Dev. Econ.3, 173–196. 10.1017/S1355770X98000102

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  SternD. I. (2004). The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev.32:21. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.03.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  SternD. I.KaufmannR. K. (2014). Anthropogenic and natural causes of climate change. Clim. Change122, 257–269. 10.1007/s10584-013-1007-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  SultanaF. (2022). The unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality. Polit. Geogr.99:102638. 10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102638

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  SuppesP. (1974). The place of theory in educational research. Psychodyn. Counsell.5, 122–127. 10.1080/13533339908404195

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  SvensmarkH.CalderN. (2007). The chilling stars: a new theory of climate change. Energy Environ.19, 1–272. 10.1260/095830508784815982

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  TalukderB.SchubertJ. E.TofighiM.LikongweP. J.ChoiE. Y.MphepoG. Y.et al. (2024). Complex adaptive systems-based framework for modeling the health impacts of climate change. J. Clim. Change Health15:100292. 10.1016/j.joclim.2023.100292

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  TamK. P.ChanH. W. (2023). Conspiracy theories and climate change: a systematic review. J. Environ. Psychol.91:102129. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102129

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  Taylor and Francis. (2023). Taylor and Francis Standard Reference Style Version 2.2. Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis, 1–11.

  • Google Scholar

• 185

  ThomasA.BaptisteA.Martyr-KollerR.PringleP.RhineyK. (2020). Climate change and small island developing states. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.45, 1–27. 10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-083355

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  TornelC. (2019). “Climate change and capitalism: a degrowth agenda for climate justice,” in A Research Agenda for Climate Justice. Elgar Research Agendas, ed. P. G. Harris (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (EE) Publishing), 1–14. 10.4337/9781788118170.00011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  TschakertP.SchlosbergD.CelermajerD.RickardsL.WinterC.ThalerM.et al. (2021). Multispecies justice: climate-just futures with, for and beyond humans. Wiley Interdiscipl. Rev. Clim. Change12:e699. 10.1002/wcc.699

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  TyagiA.CarleyK. M. (2021). Climate Change Conspiracy Theories on Social Media. 1–10. Available online at: http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03318

  • Google Scholar

• 189

  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate (UNFCCC). (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/INFORMAL/84 GE.05-62220 (E) 200705 UNITED. 62220. Available online at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 190

  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change United Nations. Available online at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 191

  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2016). Final list of proposed Sustainable Development Goal indicators. Available online at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/11803Official-List-of-Proposed-SDG-Indicators.pdf

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate and Change (UNFCCC). (2015). The Paris Agreement. Available online at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 193

  UscinskiJ. E.DouglasK.LewandowskyS. (2017). Climate change conspiracy theories. J. Environ. Sci. 1–37. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.328

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  UscinskiJ. E.OlivellaS. (2017). The conditional effect of conspiracy thinking on attitudes toward climate change. Res. Polit.4, 1–9. 10.1177/2053168017743105

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  van der LindenS. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: towards a comprehensive model. J. Environ. Psychol.41, 112–124. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  VanderheidenS. (2008). Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change, Vol. 15. Available online at: https://books.google.co.ug/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cItxZHGUywUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Atmospheric+Justice+A+Political+Theory+of+Climate+Change+book+pdf&ots=_SvH3hKYFE&sig=N7c10y3D0y7Vs_-hIughBAVzCfw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  VerweijM.NeyS.ThompsonM. (2022). Cultural Theory's contributions to climate science: reply to Hansson. Eur. J. Philos. Sci.12, 1–13. 10.1007/s13194-022-00464-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  von StorchH.StehrN. (2006). Anthropogenic climate change: a reason for concern since the 18th century and earlier. Geografiska Annaler Ser. A: Phys. Geogr.88, 107–113. 10.1111/j.0435-3676.2006.00288.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  WangX.ShiK.ZhangY.QinB.ZhangY.WangW.et al. (2023). Climate change drives rapid warming and increasing heatwaves of lakes. Sci. Bull.68, 1574–1584. 10.1016/j.scib.2023.06.028

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 200

  WarleniusR. H. (2023). The limits to degrowth: economic and climatic consequences of pessimist assumptions on decoupling. Ecol. Econ.213:107937. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107937

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  WassieY. T.AdaramolaM. S. (2019). Potential environmental impacts of small-scale renewable energy technologies in East Africa: a systematic review of the evidence. Ren. Sust. Energy Rev.111, 377–391. 10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.037

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  WeyantJ.DavidsonO.DowlatabadiH.EdmondsJ. A.GrubbM.ParsonE. A.et al. (1995). “Integrated assessment of climate change: an overview and comparison of approaches and results,” in Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change.Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 367–439.

  • Google Scholar

• 203

  World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). (2024). Provisional State of the Global Climate 2023. Provisional State of the Global Climate 2023. Geneva: WMO.

  • Google Scholar

• 204

  WyssR. (2013). Cooperation for climate adaptation in tourism: an agenda for the Alps based on structuration theory. J. Alpine Res.101–4:8. 10.4000/rga.1880

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 205

  ZhaiJ.DillonJ.DawsonV. (2024). Climate change education: cross-cultural perspectives. ECNU Rev. Educ.8:49542. 10.1177/20965311241237243

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar